Suspected of Benefit Fraud

Rorkes_Drift

andy46 wrote: »

Why should people who have worked their a***s off for years saving for a rainy day who then fall on hard times not be entitled to benefits when those that spend spend spend will be looked after by the government.

Thats a good point.

Another school of thought is saving for a rainy day is saving in case they fall on hard times, isnt that the same thing? Otherwise the government is funding someones savings.

I think benefits should be a lifeline, and not a life of riley.

Oldernotwiser

Rorkes_Drift wrote: »

If you hold the funds as a trustee for your son then it does not count as yours personally. Try to see if the Will gifting the sum does indeed hold upon trust until an age is attained, and if yes, find out who the trustee is.

If the money was left to you, but then you gift it away to avoid an IHT charge then its Disposition of Assets. Im not sure if asset disposal rules applies when seeking to attract a prescribed benefit.

If you are being interviewed, they it might be the intention to question you on suspicion of committing an offence under Section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006 - fraud by omission. You cannot be convicted if you made a genuine mistake (no intention of committing a fraud).

If you are in any doubt, give a No Comment interview until the interviewer places in front of you all the evidence they think they have, and even then you still have a right to an advocate.

Whilst I'm sure that is true, I cannot see how signing a declaration to say that you have no other money/accounts when, in fact, you have an account with £10,000 can be seen as a "mistake".

I hope I haven't been harsh with the OP but I think it's important to warn her that she may well face a criminal charge, even if she won't face a custodial sentence.

Rorkes_Drift

Im looking at it from a prosecutors position, he needs to prove mens rea. Not much use if a defendant claims they made a mistake. The crucial wording in the Fraud Act is intends, that means the burden of proof lies with the prosecution in proving the suspect intended to hide £10,000 in order to claim a benefit.

The OP hasnt admitted indending any wrongdoing at all, so is unlikely to admit to anything if brought in for questioning. Therefore I dont think there is any criminal element to this case, at worst, the OP will be asked to pay it all back.

Rach39

If the legacy was left within the last 2 years and is to OP (ie she has decided to gift it to her son) why not look at whether a Deed of Variation can be drawn up to vary the terms of the bequest to leave the money to him directly with her as Trustee?? That way the money really isn't hers and the intention is the same

ska_lover

Its not just plain naivity as people seem to be drawn into thinking - I am sure that you are asked about savings on the forms you fill in when you claim benefits. She has clearly ticked the box stating she has got no savings in the first place..

WHY SHOULD MY TAX PAYMENTS FROM MY FULL TIME JOB, GO TOWARDS FEEDING YOUR KID, WHEN YOU HAVE MORE IN THE BANK THAN ME??? (In fact 10k more than me - which was another 'freebie' in your already free existance) It doesn't stand to reason - you don't work, you dont EARN a living - yet you are far better off than me?? |

ska_lover

Rorkes_Drift wrote: »

Im looking at it from a prosecutors position, he needs to prove mens rea. Not much use if a defendant claims they made a mistake. The crucial wording in the Fraud Act is intends, that means the burden of proof lies with the prosecution in proving the suspect intended to hide £10,000 in order to claim a benefit.

The OP hasnt admitted indending any wrongdoing at all, so is unlikely to admit to anything if brought in for questioning. Therefore I dont think there is any criminal element to this case, at worst, the OP will be asked to pay it all back.

The proof is in the form she filled out - ticking the box of having 'no savings' and then signing it. How much more proof d'ya need??

danaharrison

Incyder wrote: »

Its easy to work out how much she will have to repay by just knowing how long she has had the 10k, has she said ?
It may be just a couple of hunded pounds to repay. Her big saving grace is that she can instantly repay and they will love that. Prosecutions are long winded and expensive and are not guaranteed to be won.
My bet is they will be exstatic to resolve the case fast with full repayment and an adjustment of future benefit payments.

edit.
ok, she had the money first before starting the claim which was 2 years ago. Working on losing £1 a week for every £500 pounds of savings over 6k that means 4k over is a loss of benefit of £8 a week
muliply by 104 weeks = £832 overpayment.

That aint too painful, and you'll still have £9,168 left and your benefits will be reduced from now on by just over £6 a week.

I don't know how the council tax folk will see it though. They are separate from the social and will want some CT benefit repaid aswell I guess, I don't know the rules for them.

i recently phoned the DWP to find out about savings and you are almost right there, the but it is £1 per £250 that will be deducted, the £1 per £500 is for pensioners i believe. so there will be an overpayment of £1664 for income support and then whatever u owe to council tax and a weekly deduction of £16, the good news is that the dedutcion applies for all benefits so it wont be taked from income support and council tax it will just be one £16 in total for both benefits, thats how i understood it anyway.

it might be worth giving the DWP a call and get them to explain the capital rules and work out exactly what your deduction will be, u can find the phone number on the DWP website.

hope this helps xx

CIS

The weekly deemed income from capital is £1 per £250 over £6K so the OP would have been deemed to have had £16 p/w of income for each week.

There is a diminishing capital rule but as the OP has the same capital now then it wouldn't be applied.

There wont be any overpaid CTB as the OP still qualifies for IS and so receives full CTB anyway.

MrsE_2

Sixer wrote: »

Out of interest, and perhaps for how best to advise people in the future:

If the OP repays the overpayment in one go from the £10k capital, and this takes her below the £6 threshold, her benefits will simply continue in full? Providing the DWP are happy for her to do this?

So if people commit benefit fraud, they can carry on claiming?

Seriously:eek:

Rorkes_Drift

ska_lover wrote: »

The proof is in the form she filled out - ticking the box of having 'no savings' and then signing it. How much more proof d'ya need??

The OP can use the same defence the benefits/tax office/the CSA uses - clerical error. The proof is the claimant deliberately intended to defraud beyond all reasonable doubt.

If your reasoning were true, then must of the workforce in the CSA would be in prison for fraud.